An insider's view of the Durban climate change conference

How the EU's negotiating tactics aim to force China into accepting its responsibilities as a global leader

United Nations security personel form a cordon as protesting environmental activists attempt to gain access to the plenary session of the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP17) in Durban. Photograph: Mike Hutchings/Reuters

You could call it a Christmas tradition, just like the pantomime – every year, the nations of the world gather for two weeks in December to talk about climate change. Every year, there are the villains of the piece (boo, the US, for blocking a deal! boo, the EU, for not going far enough!), while our ragged heroes seek after an elusive treasure that will transform the world. But alas, in this pantomime, there is no happy ending – at least not so far.

Behind the clownish posturing lies one ugly fact: since 1992, when these negotiations were conceived, global greenhouse gas emissions from burning fossil fuels have risen by half. Last year, in the teeth of recession and the renewed financial crisis, they rose 5%. If this continues, global warming will fast exceed the limit beyond which scientists say it will become catastrophic and irreversible.

But the pantomime blame game can occasionally be productive – because no one wants to be the villain. China was deeply hurt by accusations after the Copenhagen climate summit in 2009, which ended in a partial agreement amid scenes of chaos and bitter recriminations, that its intransigence was to blame. The US, under George W Bush, was so shamed at being the only hold-out against progress at the talks in Bali in 2007 that, after tears and impassioned speeches by poor countries on the conference floor, at the last minute its negotiators caved.

This year, the EU came to the talks dangling an unexpected prize, with strings attached – a continuation of the Kyoto protocol, the world's only existing treaty that stipulates emissions cuts, when its current provisions expire in 2012. For years, developing countries have been demanding such a commitment, as they view the 1997 Kyoto protocol as the cornerstone of any international action on global warming. But in return, the EU member states want all of the world's major economies – including those classed as "developing" – to sign up to a roadmap that would see the start of a new round of negotiations that could end in a new legally binding treaty.

The crucial dates are 2015, when the EU wants negotiations on a new agreement to wrap up, and 2020, when the emissions-cutting targets under that new agreement would come into force.

There is no guarantee, of course, that this process will work. Even if countries begin negotiations now, the divisions between nations are so deep that agreeing how far and how fast they should cut their carbon will be a long hard struggle. After all, the talks have already been going on for 20 years so far.

But the EU's manoeuvring has been masterly, because it is forcing a clear decision from the single most important player at the talks: China. At stake is whether China – the world's biggest emitter and second biggest economy – continues to be classed, as it was when the negotiations began in 1992, as a developing country alongside some of the poorest nations on earth.

China takes climate change very seriously. In its new five year plan, the government has committed to substantial reductions in greenhouse gases per unit of economic output, along with a massive increase in renewable energy generation and other green technologies. Although its absolute carbon output will continue to rise, China also argues, with reason, that as the workshop of the world, many of its emissions are related to the manufacture of goods that are shipped to the West. (China gets paid for those goods, which is why it is an economic powerhouse, but that's another story.)

With other developing nations, which have no obligations to cut their emissions under the Kyoto pact, China has called very strongly for the protocol to be extended beyond 2012, when the first commitment period ends. Beijing is now learning to be careful what it wishes for.

Because the EU is offering exactly what China wants – an extension to Kyoto in the form of a "second commitment period" under which it would sign up for emissions cuts, along with a handful of other developed nations such as Norway and Switzerland. Other developing countries are enthusiastic, and more than 120, including Brazil, South Africa and Argentina, quickly signed up to the EU's plans.

The catch is that in return for this offer, the Chinese would have to sign up to a roadmap towards a legally binding treaty that would recognise that China in 2020 is not the same as China in 1992, when the climate negotiations began. By 2020, the country's emissions per person are forecast to be the same as or greater than those of the EU.

China has long resisted calls to be legally bound by a climate treaty, insisting that as a developing country it should not have to, whereas developed countries should, as they have a larger share of historical emissions. But now it must make a tricky choice – to spurn the offer of an extension to Kyoto, which would paint it firmly as the villain, the wrecker of a deal and thus of the climate; or to move away from its entrenched opposition to a legally binding treaty, and start being treated more like a developed country. That choice will reshape the world's approach to climate change forever.

Even with China on board, however, the future of climate negotiations is not assured. The US, which signed up to Kyoto in 1997 under Bill Clinton, only to never ratify the agreement because of stiff opposition in Congress, is another. For President Obama, facing an election campaign amid the worst recession for 80 years, the political reality is a Durban deal would be used as ammunition by his opponents, most of whom dismiss climate change as a conspiracy to defraud Americans. For the real villain – look behind Obama, to the Republican party.

Damian Carrington: Getting a deal was a success, but a pitiful one. The world's climate debt is soaring and postponing action threatens an environmental austerity far greater than today's economic woes